The United States is once again at war. Once again, Congress didn't vote for it.
The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Yet in the decades since, American forces have fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and numerous smaller conflicts, often under broad congressional authorizations rather than formal declarations.
Let me be clear: I support the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to the United States, Israel, and the stability of the Mideast.
And I understand the argument for decisive action.
But that is precisely why the decision must not rest with one person alone.
Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress holds the authority to declare war while the president serves as commander in chief.
The division was intentional.
The Founders feared concentrating war-making power in a single executive.
In 1793, James Madison warned, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. . . . War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement."
Over time, however, Congress began replacing declarations of war with vague authorizations.
One early example was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
The resolution allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to take “all necessary measures” in Southeast Asia. Congress never formally declared war on North Vietnam.
This authorization became the legal basis for a massive escalation. By 1968 more than 500,000 American troops were fighting in Vietnam.
When Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recommended sending roughly 175,000 additional U.S. troops to Vietnam in July 1965, Undersecretary of State George Ball was the principal dissenter in the room.
In the summer of 1965, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara wrote a memo that spoke in terms of hundreds of thousands of American troops and years of fighting just to have a chance at "winning" in Vietnam.
But even those numbers fell far short of the 10-to-1 troop advantage military doctrine deemed necessary to outright defeat a determined guerrilla insurgency.
Vietnam demonstrated the dangers of entering a war without clearly defining its objectives or the resources required to achieve victory.
Congress should not let our country drift into wars through ambiguous authorizations and wishful thinking.
The lesson was later captured in what became known as the Weinberger–Powell Doctrine.
In 1984, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, and later General Colin Powell, argued that the United States should commit military force only when vital interests are at stake, the objectives are clearly defined, and the nation intends to win with the resources necessary to achieve those objectives.
They also insisted that any war must have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.
While I support this conflict, a majority of Americans do not.
A formal debate might have built that support by forcing leaders to define the mission before the first strike.
Congress currently relies on Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs), rather than declarations of war.
These authorizations allow presidents to use "necessary and appropriate force" without formally acknowledging that the nation is entering a war.
The most controversial example was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
While it did provide Congress’s approval for force, President George W. Bush made it clear that he hoped to resolve the crisis diplomatically.
Even if the United Nations had adopted another resolution or diplomacy had continued, Congress still had a constitutional responsibility to confront the central question.
If the United States intended to invade Iraq and remove its government, the president and Congress should have debated that decision openly and issued a declaration of war.
The War Powers Resolution needs to be reformed.
Under that law, a president may introduce U.S. forces into hostilities but must notify Congress quickly, and those forces must be withdrawn after 60 days unless Congress authorizes the operation, with an additional 30 days allowed for an orderly withdrawal.
In theory this creates a green light, a yellow light, and then a red light. In practice the 60-day window has given presidents wide freedom to launch major military operations on their own.
A president must retain the authority to act quickly to defend American forces, rescue citizens, or respond to sudden attacks.
But overthrowing a foreign government (Iraq), capturing the leader of another country (Venezuela), or deliberately targeting the head of a sovereign state (Iran) should require a formal declaration of war.
While I strongly believe Iran should not have nuclear weapons, I also believe that supporting action against Iran and insisting on constitutional process are not contradictory positions.
They are, in fact, inseparable.
A declaration of war tells our allies that we are serious, it tells our enemies that we are united, and it tells the men and women we send into battle that the country stands fully behind them.
If Congress is unwilling to make that commitment, it should not send Americans to fight.
If a president believes a war is necessary, he should be willing to ask the American people for their consent and accept their judgment if they reject that course of action.
The American people are sensible and capable of making that decision.
(Related articles may be found here, and here.)
Robert Zapesochny is a researcher and writer. His work focuses on foreign affairs, national security, and presidential history. He's been published in numerous outlets. Read more Robert Zapesochny Insider articles — Click Here Now.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.